sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
clk_unregister() already checks the clk ptr using
!clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)) so there is no need to check it
again before calling it.
Signed-off-by: Yihao Han <hanyihao@vivo.com>
---
sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c b/sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c
index 70c827162be4..84e21f7fc179 100644
--- a/sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c
+++ b/sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c
@@ -1247,8 +1247,7 @@ static void i2s_unregister_clocks(struct samsung_i2s_priv *priv)
int i;
for (i = 0; i < priv->clk_data.clk_num; i++) {
- if (!IS_ERR(priv->clk_table[i]))
- clk_unregister(priv->clk_table[i]);
+ clk_unregister(priv->clk_table[i]);
}
}
--
2.17.1
On 27/05/2022 08:54, Yihao Han wrote: > clk_unregister() already checks the clk ptr using > !clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)) so there is no need to check it > again before calling it. > No, this explanation does not make sense. clk_unregister() warns and this code is not equivalent. Best regards, Krzysztof
Le 29/05/2022 à 10:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit : > On 27/05/2022 08:54, Yihao Han wrote: >> clk_unregister() already checks the clk ptr using >> !clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)) so there is no need to check it >> again before calling it. >> > > No, this explanation does not make sense. clk_unregister() warns and > this code is not equivalent. > > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Hi, Moreover, as pointed out by greg in [1] on some plateform the assertion in the commit description is wrong. His message is about clk_disable() but, IIUC, it makes sense for clk_unregister() as well. See [2] on the sh plateform. CJ [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YqMIUOTU%2Fk5XpW3I@kroah.com/ [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.18.3/source/drivers/sh/clk/core.c#L452
On 10/06/2022 18:15, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Le 29/05/2022 à 10:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit : >> On 27/05/2022 08:54, Yihao Han wrote: >>> clk_unregister() already checks the clk ptr using >>> !clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)) so there is no need to check it >>> again before calling it. >>> >> >> No, this explanation does not make sense. clk_unregister() warns and >> this code is not equivalent. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > > Hi, > > Moreover, as pointed out by greg in [1] on some plateform the assertion > in the commit description is wrong. His message is about clk_disable() > but, IIUC, it makes sense for clk_unregister() as well. See [2] on the > sh plateform. > Yes, this is true as well, although does not have the practical impact on this driver as it uses platforms with common clock framework. Best regards, Krzysztof
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.